PDA

View Full Version : What happens when you begin a conversation by calling someone dishonest


brucds
08-24-2010, 09:55 AM
Conn is either totally dishonest - or stunningly ignorant - in his assertion that this bogus mosque "controversy" was turned into a national issue by President Obama's reaction to the hysteria. This was a cynically calculated "national issue", being fired up by Murdoch's media minions on FOX, before the President weighed in with a bit of sanity - and the reason that he spoke. Peter King railed against the mosque at a Heritage Foundation event in late July, and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh - prominently featured on the Heritage Foundation website shilling for donations - have been ginning this thing up for months.

Conn isn't stupid - so my take is that he's dishonest. Smarmy stuff...

Ocean
08-24-2010, 10:41 AM
I agree it did sound like partisan-driven dishonesty. Something to keep in mind in the future regarding his credibility.

conncarroll
08-24-2010, 10:44 AM
Conn is either totally dishonest - or stunningly ignorant - in his assertion that this bogus mosque "controversy" was turned into a national issue by President Obama's reaction to the hysteria. This was a cynically calculated "national issue", being fired up by Murdoch's media minions on FOX, before the President weighed in with a bit of sanity - and the reason that he spoke. Peter King railed against the mosque at a Heritage Foundation event in late July, and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh - prominently featured on the Heritage Foundation website shilling for donations - have been ginning this thing up for months.

Conn isn't stupid - so my take is that he's dishonest. Smarmy stuff...
I believe Pam Gellar, not FOX or Ruport Murdoch, or Rush Limbaugh is the party that pressed this issue onto a national scale. That is why I said it was "simmering on the edges and then President Barack Obama decided to be Pam Gellar's publicist."

Yes, it was an issue before the President spoke about it, but is "brucds" really claiming that the President didn't raise the stakes by weighing in? It went from an occasional story on Morning Joe the week before to THE ONLY STORY THAT EXISTS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY after the President spoke. I don't produce cable news I just watch it.

And as far as honesty, please do watch Peter King's speech "railing" against the mosque at The Heritage Foundation:
http://www.heritage.org/Events/2010/07/Peter-King
I'll warn you though, it is a 50 minute video and you are going to have to wait a long long time before the ground zero mosque is mentioned (as in wait till the very end during the QandA ... and even then notice how measured King's response).

And here is how we promoted Kings appearance on The Foundry:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/30/in-the-green-room-rep-peter-king-r-ny-on-counterterrorism-under-the-obama-administration/

notice how often the mosque is mentioned ... not at all.

"brucds" should really get his facts straight before he accuses others of dishonesty.

Whatfur
08-24-2010, 10:49 AM
I agree it did sound like partisan-driven dishonesty. Something to keep in mind in the future regarding his credibility.

And your jumping in here seems like partisan-driven piling on with only ignorance to show for it.

conncarroll
08-24-2010, 11:00 AM
I agree it did sound like partisan-driven dishonesty. Something to keep in mind in the future regarding his credibility.
Please do detail exactly what you are accusing me of being dishonest about.

TwinSwords
08-24-2010, 11:15 AM
Please do detail exactly what you are accusing me of being dishonest about.

You were lying, or showing your ignorance, when you suggested that this wasn't a national issue until Obama commented.

Ocean
08-24-2010, 11:25 AM
Please do detail exactly what you are accusing me of being dishonest about.

Sure, Conn, this (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/30389?in=04:59&out=06:23) is what sounds dishonest. And you went at it again to emphasize (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/30389?in=09:29&out=09:44) the President's role in the controversy, as if he was driving it. Whether you realize it or not, you made this sound like it was no big deal at all, no one really talking much about it until President Obama brought it up. If that's not what you meant, then clarify it now, and perhaps, accept my advise of being more careful in the future as how you word your opinions. Or just accept that when you word your statements in ways that create an impression that doesn't reflect objective reality but partisan sentiment, there may be a reaction from those who disagree with you.

A humble commenter's opinion.

conncarroll
08-24-2010, 11:26 AM
You were lying, or showing your ignorance, when you suggested that this wasn't a national issue until Obama commented.
Watch again. That is not what I said. I said this issue was "simmering around the edges" until Obama spoke.
I don't see how this is controversial. Are you all denying that The President of the United States significantly rose the profile of this issue when he chose to talk about it?

Ocean
08-24-2010, 11:27 AM
Watch again. That is not what I said. I said this issue was "simmering around the edges" until Obama spoke.
I don't see how this is controversial. Are you all denying that The President of the United States significantly rose the profile of this issue when he chose to talk about it?

That's your opinion only. Others disagree with you. See my other comment with links.

TwinSwords
08-24-2010, 11:39 AM
Watch again. That is not what I said. I said this issue was "simmering around the edges" until Obama spoke.
I don't see how this is controversial. Are you all denying that The President of the United States significantly rose the profile of this issue when he chose to talk about it?

You said (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/30389?in=05:40&out=06:32) it "should have remained a complete non-issue, and was just simmering around the edges," until Obama weighed in. Your clear and intended implication was that Obama made this into the wingnut feeding frenzy that it has been for the better part of August.

Don't pretend you don't know what you were doing, Conn.

Don Zeko
08-24-2010, 11:59 AM
Watch again. That is not what I said. I said this issue was "simmering around the edges" until Obama spoke.
I don't see how this is controversial. Are you all denying that The President of the United States significantly rose the profile of this issue when he chose to talk about it?

I don't know how exactly one would gauge the visibility of this issue, but I certainly didn't notice a difference in media coverage after Obama addressed it.

Whatfur
08-24-2010, 12:06 PM
Sure, Conn, this (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/30389?in=04:59&out=06:23) is what sounds dishonest. And you went at it again to emphasize (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/30389?in=09:29&out=09:44) the President's role in the controversy, as if he was driving it. Whether you realize it or not, you made this sound like it was no big deal at all, no one really talking much about it until President Obama brought it up. If that's not what you meant, then clarify it now, and perhaps, accept my advise of being more careful in the future as how you word your opinions. Or just accept that when you word your statements in ways that create an impression that doesn't reflect objective reality but partisan sentiment, there may be a reaction from those who disagree with you.

A humble commenter's opinion.

I guess when y'all don't have anything substantive to argue about you choose stuff like this. Conn expressed HIS opinion. He can have one. In his opinion the Mosque controversy was ratcheted up after Obama entered the picture. He did NOT say it had NOT reached a national scale by that point. You all are arguing against an issue of degree and calling it dishonest...making you all the dishonest ones.

Whatfur
08-24-2010, 12:20 PM
I don't know how exactly one would gauge the visibility of this issue, but I certainly didn't notice a difference in media coverage after Obama addressed it.

That's good Zeke. You, like Conn, are entitled to an opinion. Conn, like myself, thinks there certainly was a substantive increase in the volume. Even logic might tell you that taking positive value A and adding positive value B gives a sum of A+B larger than A. So, we are arguing about the size of B not any dishonesty about whether B exists or not.

Ocean
08-24-2010, 12:21 PM
I guess when y'all don't have anything substantive to argue about you choose stuff like this.

And what are you arguing/opining about? Our opinions about someone else's opinion? Will this go on and on and on?

Whatfur
08-24-2010, 12:22 PM
And what are you arguing/opining about? Our opinions about someone else's opinion? Will this go on and on and on?

Its about the label of dishonesty, followed by your suggesting that that false label can be used against someone in the future. You all turn up so dull sometimes.

Ocean
08-24-2010, 12:29 PM
You all turn up so dull sometimes.

...and on and on and on...

conncarroll
08-24-2010, 12:30 PM
I don't know how exactly one would gauge the visibility of this issue, but I certainly didn't notice a difference in media coverage after Obama addressed it.
I am not a waking Lexis/Nexis database, but I would be willing to bet a fairly large sum of money that coverage of the mosque issue significantly increased after Obama weighed in.

Like I said in the diavlog, it definitely did for my media diet.

handle
08-24-2010, 12:52 PM
Whatever...go dunk yourself in yourself.

Added: For the record, this was his response to Oceans comment above and has since been wisely deleted by author. The thread continues in "Life, the Universe and Everything", ""Handle the troll" thread... enjoy!

And your jumping in here seems like partisan-driven piling on with only ignorance to show for it.

You might want to avoid opening yourself up to your own criticism...just some "friendly advice".

Hint: Ocean was addressing Conn, then you "pile on, with insult".
Or is that not what it's called when you do it?

Sorry Ocean, can't resist the blatant hypocrisy, I yield the floor.

graz
08-24-2010, 02:29 PM
Conn isn't stupid - so my take is that he's dishonest. Smarmy stuff...

http://arguewithsigns.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/foxandfriends.jpg
Just add Conn to the Fox field and watch this.
Daily Show segment. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap?xrs=share_copy)

conncarroll
08-24-2010, 04:01 PM
http://arguewithsigns.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/foxandfriends.jpg
Just add Conn to the Fox field and watch this.
Daily Show segment. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap?xrs=share_copy)
The virulence of these attacks onlyconfirms my criticism of Obama on this issue.
He fumbled this into a disaster just like theGates arrest
Obama is Jimmy Carter. Get used to it.

Oh, and here is a good Daily Beast story about what a sham this whole mosque story is:
The Mosque Is the New Balloon Boy
by Asra Q. Noman
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-24/ground-zero-mosque-vs-balloon-boy-media-frenzy/

I'm so happy my President chose to speak about this "juvenile and amateur" issue.

TwinSwords
08-24-2010, 04:42 PM
I am not a waking Lexis/Nexis database
No. But you are deeply dishonest. Or clueless. I'm betting on dishonest.

Note the dates:

August 13: Transcript of Obama's remarks about Ground Zero mosque (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/obamas-remarks-about-ground-ze.html)

July 18: Sarah Palin sparks Twitter fight on mosque (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39899.html)

So, Palin was feeding the frenzy, which by this point was already in full swing, nearly a full month before Obama finally weighed in.

Whatfur
08-24-2010, 05:13 PM
OMG!!!! A twitter fight. Twin, your flailing, weak and unbecoming.

TwinSwords
08-24-2010, 05:35 PM
OMG!!!! A twitter fight. Twin, your flailing, weak and unbecoming.

Wanted to capture this before you had a chance to delete it.

Whatfur
08-24-2010, 05:43 PM
Wanted to capture this before you had a chance to delete it.

No worries my mendacious friend.

uncle ebeneezer
08-24-2010, 05:56 PM
And you can go even further back to see who made this non-troversy:

Hannity 5/13/10 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592906,00.html)

Glenn Beck 5/26/10 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/41146/)

But no, it really was Obama who caused the uproar 3 months later.

Ocean
08-24-2010, 06:00 PM
But no, it really was Obama who caused the uproar 3 months later.

Besides, even if that was the case, it would only speak about the noise that the anti-Obama media machinery makes.

stephanie
08-24-2010, 06:05 PM
And you can go even further back to see who made this non-troversy:

Hannity 5/13/10 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592906,00.html)

Glenn Beck 5/26/10 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/41146/)

But no, it really was Obama who caused the uproar 3 months later.

Heck, even conservative Ron Paul says the neo-cons are the cause of the uproar.

(To combine two topics in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way.)

Edit: to be clear, of course you're right. And someone who really thought it was a stupid topic not worth discussion should have been criticizing those who were trying to make it an issue and saying they should be ignored and we should talk about something of substance. Yet somehow they aren't worth criticism at all. I suppose it's the label one would apply to them.

Whatfur
08-24-2010, 06:07 PM
So now its "caused the uproar". Pretty funny stuff...as in funny how dishonest you all are in labeling another dishonest. Quite the crew. Model citizens all.

Eric Biesel
08-24-2010, 06:10 PM
Heck, even conservative Ron Paul says the neo-cons are the cause of the uproar.

(To combine two topics in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way.)

:) Funny.

TwinSwords
08-24-2010, 06:17 PM
And you can go even further back to see who made this non-troversy:

Hannity 5/13/10 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592906,00.html)

Glenn Beck 5/26/10 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/41146/)

But no, it really was Obama who caused the uproar 3 months later.

Thanks very much for those links.

What Conn really meant to say was that it was all fine and well as long as it was just wingnuts, lunatics, and conservatives performing one of their ritual hatefests against a despised minority. What made it a travesty was when the President weighed in on the wrong side.

TwinSwords
08-24-2010, 06:20 PM
Besides, even if that was the case, it would only speak about the noise that the anti-Obama media machinery makes.

Precisely! There really was an uptick in wingnut/loon histrionics following the president's brief remarks. Conservatives were simply outraged that he would dare to comment on their anti-Muslim jihad.

TwinSwords
08-24-2010, 06:29 PM
And you can go even further back to see who made this non-troversy:

Hannity 5/13/10 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592906,00.html)

Glenn Beck 5/26/10 (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/41146/)

But no, it really was Obama who caused the uproar 3 months later.

To this, let's add:

August 3: Mayor Bloomberg Stands Up For Mosque (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/bloomberg-stands-up-for-mosque.html)

Ten days before Obama uttered a word. And the Bloomberg speech (like Palin's remarks two weeks before) was extensively covered in the national press.

handle
08-24-2010, 06:31 PM
So now its "caused the uproar". Pretty funny stuff...as in funny how dishonest you all are in labeling another dishonest. Quite the crew. Model citizens all.

Quoted, cut, and pasted... you know where! :)

Whatfur
08-24-2010, 06:34 PM
To this, let's add:

August 3: Mayor Bloomberg Stands Up For Mosque (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/bloomberg-stands-up-for-mosque.html)

Ten days before Obama uttered a word. And the Bloomberg speech (like Palin's remarks two weeks before) was extensively covered in the national press.

The "simmering" of bit players.

TwinSwords
08-24-2010, 06:41 PM
The "simmering" of bit players.

Conn said it was a complete non-story before Obama weighed in.

But almost a month before Obama said anything, neocon Jeffery Goldberg weighed in with this:

Peace-Seeking Muslims Should Refudiate Sarah Palin
JUL 19 2010, 11:55 AM ET

[...]

Let's put aside the issue of "refudiation" for a moment; the larger issue here is the intent of the Cordoba Initiative, which is trying to build the mosque. I know the people who run the initiative; they are, for lack of a better term, "peace-seeking Muslims." I spoke at a program co-sponsored by Cordoba last year, and I came to understand that the organization is interested mainly in battling extremism within Islam, and in building bridges to non-Muslim faiths. It seems to me that its mission makes Cordoba an appropriate fit for Ground Zero. One of the ways to prevent future Ground Zeroes is to encourage moderation within Islam, and to treat Muslim moderates differently than we treat Muslim extremists. The campaign against this mosque treats all Muslims as perpetrators. This is a terrible mistake, for moral and strategic reasons. I'm afraid that Sarah Palin, if she were ever to become President, would help create what Muslim extremists have so far unsuccesssfully sought to provoke: an all-out clash of civilizations.

Remember all that fake posturing you did a while ago in a long drawn out debate with PMP, demanding to know where the Muslims were who were coming out against Islamic extremism? Well here's one example. How is he being treated by your side?

I'll let Daisy Khan, one of the chief targets, answer that:

"This is like a metastasized anti-Semitism. That's what we feel right now. It's not even Islamophobia, it's beyond Islamophobia -- it's hate of Muslims."

stephanie
08-24-2010, 06:57 PM
How is he being treated by your side?

Right. And this is also why the "just be quiet and it might go away faster" argument is so pathetic, let alone the efforts to blame people who opposed the embarassingly awful behavior in question by prominent Republican politicians and bloggers and other media figures. Silence suggests that no one has much of a problem with what is being said, and makes the targets (who could certainly be defined as all Muslims) feel like maybe non-Muslims in the US in general are in agreement.

Certainly I would agree that if it's just some crank who no one takes seriously saying something that it's reasonable to say the best approach is to ignore it. Pam Geller, for example, was ignored for ages. But when large segments of the mainstream Republican Party (including candidates for public office and at least two people who have been mentioned as Presidential candidates) and supposedly reasonable media outlets for them, like The Corner, go on about it, and opposition to mosques seems to be popping up more generally, it doesn't fall in that category, much as it should. It becomes a national issue, and important to reaffirm our adherence to American values in opposition to what's been going on.

look
08-24-2010, 07:58 PM
The virulence of these attacks onlyconfirms my criticism of Obama on this issue.
He fumbled this into a disaster just like theGates arrest
Obama is Jimmy Carter. Get used to it.

I think the Gates incident was planned. He'd been prepped on the question.

I think Gibbs' saying the Dems were going to lose seats was planned. Pissing off Pelosi was just icing on the cake. Bam wants to go all Clintonesque the second term.

I think Gibb's 'meltdown' was staged.

I think Obama's speech at the Ramadan dinner was intentionally supportive of the mosque, and he knew he'd catch flack.

I think these kinds of things are done to intentionally inflame and keep everyone's eyes off the really important issues, such as the wars and Wall Street/Big Business getting a walk in FinReg and Obamacare.

.

Whatfur
08-24-2010, 07:58 PM
Conn said it was a complete non-story before Obama weighed in.

But almost a month before Obama said anything, neocon Jeffery Goldberg weighed in with this:



Remember all that fake posturing you did a while ago in a long drawn out debate with PMP, demanding to know where the Muslims were who were coming out against Islamic extremism? Well here's one example. How is he being treated by your side?

I'll let Daisy Khan, one of the chief targets, answer that:

Apples and oranges. And you misrepresent my argument from that thread. I did not say it while in the main thread, but let me be clear...NO ONE here is looser with the truth than YOU. And I have avoided your BS, just because you were not worth bothering with.

TwinSwords
08-24-2010, 11:26 PM
I think the Gates incident was planned. He'd been prepped on the question.

I think Gibbs' saying the Dems were going to lose seats was planned. Pissing off Pelosi was just icing on the cake. Bam wants to go all Clintonesque the second term.

I think Gibb's 'meltdown' was staged.

I think Obama's speech at the Ramadan dinner was intentionally supportive of the mosque, and he knew he'd catch flack.

I think these kinds of things are done to intentionally inflame and keep everyone's eyes off the really important issues, such as the wars and Wall Street/Big Business getting a walk in FinReg and Obamacare.

.
Hey, can I ask you a question? Do you listen to Alex Jones very much?

TwinSwords
08-24-2010, 11:32 PM
Certainly I would agree that if it's just some crank who no one takes seriously saying something that it's reasonable to say the best approach is to ignore it. Pam Geller, for example, was ignored for ages. But when large segments of the mainstream Republican Party (including candidates for public office and at least two people who have been mentioned as Presidential candidates) and supposedly reasonable media outlets for them, like The Corner, go on about it, and opposition to mosques seems to be popping up more generally, it doesn't fall in that category, much as it should. It becomes a national issue, and important to reaffirm our adherence to American values in opposition to what's been going on.

A useful and important distinction. Defensive conservatives are fond of pointing out that there are crazies and extremists on all sides -- and surely, there are. The problem, I believe, is that the crazies have now become the dominant faction within the Republican Party, and by extension (and by virtue of the fact that the media is in their pocket), the nation. I guess the very best we can hope for is that once the tea party element takes over the US government, there will be a significant backlash from ordinary Americans who don't share the extreme views of the fringe of the conservative movement, but who are more or less oblivious to the presence of this political movement today.

look
08-25-2010, 12:13 AM
Hey, can I ask you a question? Do you listen to Alex Jones very much?No, I've barely heard of him, don't know what he looks like, and have never listened to him.

Guess what, TS, I made those observations all by myself! Ain't I devious.

TwinSwords
08-25-2010, 12:26 AM
No, I've barely heard of him, don't know what he looks like, and have never listened to him.

Guess what, TS, I made those observations all by myself! Ain't I devious.

You should listen. I think you'd like him.

look
08-25-2010, 12:27 AM
You should listen. I think you'd like him.Thanks.

osmium
08-25-2010, 01:46 PM
The virulence of these attacks onlyconfirms my criticism of Obama on this issue.
He fumbled this into a disaster just like theGates arrest
Obama is Jimmy Carter. Get used to it.


Obama isn't Jimmy Carter, and there isn't a national malaise. I do wish he would communicate a little better to that fact. Maybe I'm alone, but I think the President is not that great a speaker.

But, Conn, stop. Stop. What's with the "Jimmy Carter" stuff? That's political shorthand BS talk. Jimmy Carter isn't Jimmy Carter either. You're playing on the level of this thread, rather than above it.

(hmm, I came in here to say how much I love the Stupid Pointless Flamewars section. It's like reading Fangoria magazine. It just got me through 10 minutes of my day.)

rfrobison
08-25-2010, 10:34 PM
[Carroll is] playing on the level of this thread, rather than above it.

Excellent point, Osmium. I'd be careful about diving too deep into the comments section, Mr. Carroll. There's such a thing as cheapening one's brand...

Whatfur
08-25-2010, 10:52 PM
and others are obviously trying to raise theirs.

rfrobison
08-25-2010, 11:16 PM
A fair point, but I would argue that the pros can and should safely ignore the barbs from the peanut gallery. That's not to say they shouldn't respond to a well thought out question or a trenchant argument. On the contrary, I think it's great that people who get paid to write and think for a living take time to speak to us common folk.

Whatfur
08-26-2010, 07:50 AM
A fair point, but I would argue that the pros can and should safely ignore the barbs from the peanut gallery. That's not to say they shouldn't respond to a well thought out question or a trenchant argument. On the contrary, I think it's great that people who get paid to write and think for a living take time to speak to us common folk.

You seem a bit conflicted. I personally have no problem with Conn or anyone fighting fire with fire.

rfrobison
08-26-2010, 09:00 AM
You seem a bit conflicted. I personally have no problem with Conn or anyone fighting fire with fire.

I suppose, but if I were in his position I wouldn't waste my time with it.

graz
08-26-2010, 09:38 AM
I personally have no problem with Conn or anyone fighting fire with fire.

Nor do I. Iirc, your first entry in to the fire-pit was way back when you were defending Conn in the forum against what you thought were misguided attacks.

Conn has since entered the fray many times. And it's clear to me that he enjoys and I might say he feels compelled to parry and joust with opposing views, which translates into "other people."

There are varied methods of engagement in politics, but direct argument is clearly one form. The approach that rfrobinson and Bob Wright (and his proxy, Brenda) promote, sounds fine. But in reality, none of them employ it exclusively. Just take a gander at any Bob dv. He's combative and sometimes insulting, especially when his dander is up.

They all seem to be as misguided as Rodney King. "Can't we all just get along?" No, we can't. I say they're welcome to lead by example. But spare me the moralizing, whining and reasoned appeals.

Name calling may be a drag on civil discourse. But it's clearly a part of the typical discourse people exchange, in so many subtle or not so subtle ways. Get over it already!

rfrobison
08-26-2010, 10:05 AM
They [R.W., Brenda, rfr] all seem to be as misguided as Rodney King. "Can't we all just get along?" No, we can't. I say they're welcome to lead by example. But spare me the moralizing, whining and reasoned appeals.

Name calling may be a drag on civil discourse. But it's clearly a part of the typical discourse people exchange, in so many subtle or not so subtle ways. Get over it already!

To each his own, graz. Personally, I find all the silly taunts a distraction, but if you enjoy it, hey, who am I to gainsay that? What I do know is that some people whose views I'd like to hear are talking about abandoning the forum for someplace else. That strikes me as a shame.

Maybe they're thin-skinned. Maybe they're childish. Or maybe they find the whole game of trading distinctly unwitty insults a bore. I do.

Ciao.

graz
08-26-2010, 10:11 AM
... What I do know is that some people whose views I'd like to hear are talking about abandoning the forum for someplace else. That strikes me as a shame ...


And the examples that I know of, are due to the censorship, not the incivility.

Whatfur
08-26-2010, 10:14 AM
...Or maybe they find the whole game of trading distinctly unwitty insults a bore. I do.

Ciao.

Thats funny, I found going from thread to thread seeing ledocs telling me that he found this vlog and that vlog boring, unwitty and boring...yet I make a(n) (un)witty insult and I get it sent to the dungeon. I have come to understand that what the admins here lack in intelligence that make up for with an absense of humor.

How's your cat, btw?

rfrobison
08-26-2010, 10:23 AM
And the examples that I know of, are due to the censorship, not the incivility.

Yeah, that crossed my mind. I dunno, Graz. Nobody's perfect, right? The powers that be are trying to enforce a bit of decorum in hopes of elevating the discussion. I agree that some people are getting shafted by having their purely intellectual disputes thrown out with the refuse, but the fact remains, any reasonable discussion or debate needs some kind of rules.

For my part, I will try to do as you suggest and lead by example. If you haven't noticed, I try to stay clear of these tit-for-tat sessions. Sorry if my "moralizing" is grating on your nerves, but I'd like to keep my disagreements with people within the realm of ideas. I don't like the thought of choosing who my friends are (even my virtual Net friends) based on politics or whatever.

Anyway, I've said as much as I want to say on this matter. I'm waiting for Boxing Day. You wanna be my one-day right-wing sparring partner? You pick the topic.

rfrobison
08-26-2010, 10:26 AM
How's your cat, btw?

Loud. He wants me to come to bed. Which I think I'll do. Oyasumi nasai. (Good night.)

graz
08-26-2010, 10:30 AM
I'm not opposed to decorum. But the current approach is no more successful than the last. I may be on an opposite pole, yet I'm always (the bit about moralizing was for rhetorical purposes only) happy to hear what you have to say.

Buona Fortuna. Ciao.